Breaking: US Supreme Court Rules Against Pro-Life Docs in Chemical Abortion Case

Supreme Court Rules Pro-Life Doctors Cannot Challenge FDA on Abortion Drug Regulations

In a significant setback for the pro-life movement, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that pro-life doctors lack standing to challenge the FDA’s removal of safety restrictions on abortion drugs. The unanimous decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is terrible news for the protection of the preborn and for vulnerable women’s health from the ever growing use of chemical abortions to end the life of preborn children.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, delivering the opinion of the Court, acknowledged the plaintiffs’ strong legal, moral, and ideological objections to elective abortion and the FDA’s effective deregulation of mifepristone. However, he stated that because these doctors do not prescribe or use mifepristone, they cannot sue the FDA over its actions.

The FDA’s 2016 and 2021 decisions to deregulate mifepristone, an abortion drug, have made it alarmingly easy for doctors to prescribe and for women to obtain. These changes include reducing the number of required doctor visits, allowing mail-order distribution, and eliminating the need to report nonfatal complications. These relaxed regulations compromise women’s safety and obscure the true risks associated with the drug.

The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, led the challenge that ended up at the US Supreme Court. They argued that the FDA’s actions betray the fundamental principles of protecting the vulnerable, particularly the unborn, and ensuring high standards of medical care. ADF senior counsel Erin Hawley criticized the FDA for removing crucial safety protocols, stressing that women should have ongoing medical supervision when taking high-risk abortion drugs.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion, emphasized the procedural nature of the ruling, stating that just as abortionists lack standing to assert the rights of their clients, doctors who oppose abortion cannot assert the rights of their patients. This is in stark contrast to decades of precedent where abortion doctors challenged pro-life laws asserting that very type of standing to sue.

Procedural barriers such as the difficulty in obtaining standing to defend the rights of the preborn, highlight some of the more technical legal hurdles faced by pro-lifers in a legal system that, even after Roe has been overturned, is stacked against those seeking to defend the right to life of the preborn.

This decision comes nearly two years after the Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs ruling, which overturned Roe v. Wade. Despite that great legal victory, the pro-life movement now faces new challenges as the federal government under the Biden administration continues to promote abortion across the board.

Legal experts such as Heritage Foundation legal fellows Thomas Jipping and Melanie Israel have emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not confirm or support the safety or effectiveness of mifepristone, underscoring the need for future pro-life policymakers to prioritize women’s safety and demand adherence to stringent safety protocols.

For pro-life advocates, this decision represents a significant setback in the ongoing battle to protect unborn children and ensure that women are not left vulnerable to the dangers of unregulated abortion drugs.

The ruling is a call to action for continued vigilance and advocacy to defend the sanctity of life against the growing use of chemical abortion.

1 comment on “Breaking: US Supreme Court Rules Against Pro-Life Docs in Chemical Abortion Case

  1. David Bjornstrom says:

    The lack of “standing” in this case could have been cured if the Court had wanted. Most people have not heard that the Court denied a motion last February to join a class of unborn babies in the case… unborn babies with a legal right to life in many states. Surely those potential victims of abortion would have had enough of a stake in the outcome of this case to provide legal “standing.”

    The Court in the Dobbs case said it would defer to the states on abortion issues. With many states now extending legal rights to the unborn, the Court should have joined the unborn as co-plaintiffs to be heard in this case.

    The Court’s refusal to hear from unborn children who are protected in some but not all of the states was especially wrong when a big issue in the case was whether abortion drugs can be shipped from one state to another.

    With Roe now gone, the Court should have followed numerous past decisions acknowledging the right of unborn children to be represented in Court when those children have a personal stake in the outcome of a case. Legal protections for a woman’s future descendants can be found in numerous and diverse areas of the law. See

    It would seem that the Court in this case orchestrated its own lack of standing by refusing to join the unborn as a party.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to top